There is a common misconception that according to Jewish Talmudic or Biblical law, the rule is ‘an eye for an eye’.

Or rather, that this means is that if a person blinds another person then he shall be blinded as a punishment.

That is not what Talmudic law says.

What The Law Says

What the law says is that the person who damages another person or another person’s property, must pay compensation.

The amount of the compensation is the amount they would pay not to have to suffer themselves the thing that they caused to happen to someone else.

In other words, if Jack caused Jill to lose an eye, how much would Jack pay not to have to lose his own eye?

If Jack is rich, the amount is going to be greater than if Jack is poor.

If Jack is a watchmaker who needs his eye to see the small parts in a watch in order to earn his living, then the value to him of not losing his eye will be greater than if Jack does not need his eye so much.

That is how the compensation is calculated – by asking how much the thing lost is worth to the person who caused the damage.

It is like giving someone the opportunity to avoid losing an eye or whatever by paying compensation ahead of the event that is not going to happen.

Instinctive Knowledge

I think the lesson we can understand in the world of today is that we all probably know just how valuable our ‘assets’ are.

We might argue with someone (a judge for example) who wanted to put a higher value on something than we do, but in our hearts we know the value of things.

Karma

If karma is a kind of flexing of the universe – straightening out the kinks caused by some action – then it’s easy to see Talmudic compensation as a kind of currency for karma.

It Is The Exception That Proves The Rule

‘It is the exception that proves that rule.’ is one of my favourite sayings.

It surely means that we can detect the existence of a rule when we are told of an exception, because the exception describes what is not within the rule – thereby proving the existence and features of the rule.

So, the exception to the ‘an eye for an eye’ rule – at least the part that says that it is not literal – occurs when two witnesses lie and tell the court that they saw an innocent person commit a murder.

The rule there is that if they are proved to have been lying, then they suffer the fate of the innocent person about whom they lied.

A Bloody Court

Having said that, the death sentence was so rarely used in Talmudic courts that a court that sentenced one man to death in seven years (some say seventy years) of its sitting, was called a ‘bloody’ court.

An Eye For An Eye – Currency For Karma is a post from: No More Pencils

I just saw the film The Iron Lady about the life of Margaret Thatcher.

Meryl Streep is almost perfect and very appealing as she shows Thatcher in her old age and in flashbacks as a formidable prime minister.

The film concentrates on Thatcher in her old age for most of its one and three quarter hours, and that is the film’s weakness.

While we see flashbacks, the scenes are never long enough to take off and sustain the idea that we are really ‘in the story’ because we know that soon we will be back with Thatcher in her dotage, hallucinating visions of her long-dead husband.

The focus is on Maggie as a bright but confused old woman – and that image is there reminding us of the fact all the time to the point that it is claustrophobic.

There is never a shift of perspective, save perhaps for the scene when Airie Neeve and her voice coach are teaching her how to modulate her voice to become a winner.

There are film clips from the period, showing strikes and confrontations with the police. But this footage is simply documentary context – there is no character for us to fix on.

Dark Interiors

So this is a very interior film in every sense. It is mainly shot in interiors and we see the interior of Maggie’s mind.

She is seen in lingering shots as she negotiates the hallucinations she suffers in her old age.

She is seen in flashback in her prime, spanking the bottoms (metaphorically) of her weakling cabinet ministers.

She is seen gleaming with the ecstasy of purpose as she sets out to put Britain right.

We see her try by force of will to mould Britain and the British to regain the middle ground for those who want to work hard and bugger the slackers as she sees them.

And we see her finally, exiting down the stairs of her home – just fading into the distance.

I think I will recall scenes from the film for a long time. That is my touchstone for whether a film was worth making in the first place.

Iron Lady – Film (movie) Review is a post from: No More Pencils

It’s funny how one gets an impression of a man from such tenuous information, but I believe that Mr Buffett may be the sort of person to listen to an opinion about Tesco Stores and act on it.

It’s relevant because according to sharecast Mr Buffett has just bought £350 million worth of shares in Tesco.

Tesco Stores, in England at least, have had to be brought kicking and screaming towards the ideas of healthy food and good treatment of farm animals, and are still resistant to these ideas.

Sainsbury’s on the other hand, have understood the groundswell of public opinion that wants to eat food that is healthier and is not the result of ill-treating farm animals.

To get a perspective on this, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall has campaigned for the fair treatment of chickens.

He continues to do this through his long-running TV series and at the general meetings of Tesco shareholders.

He has become a political activist convincing the large supermarkets to see the writing on the wall regarding food and what is in it, and how and from what animals it is obtained.

He has had great success, but Tesco has set its stall out to be the opposite of healthy and caring.

I hope that Mr Buffett can and will nudge Tesco towards a better path. It is what the public wants. It will benefit people – particularly those on low incomes – and it will benefit Tesco.

I have written to Mr Buffett in these terms.

Will Warren Buffett Help Tesco Chickens is a post from: No More Pencils

I am reading The Conquest Of Happiness by Bertrand Russell.

It was first published in 1930 and Russell has no qualms about slamming any kind of person who is on what he sees as the wrong road.

He has no time for people who put on airs or are only interested in experiences so that they can brag about them.

He thinks the Protestant work ethic produces tight-jawed success-oriented people with overdeveloped wills and an underdeveloped intellect and sense of enjoyment of life.

He thinks they will extinguish themselves in time (fewer children, and eventual sterility caused by being fixated on success that, once attained, leaves ennui and dissolution).

I will add to this review as I read more.

The Conquest Of Happiness – Book Review is a post from: No More Pencils

Under the headline, ‘Phone Hacking: former NotW journalist ‘approved bribe for Huntley guard” the Telegraph today refers to an email of March 7, 2009, alleged to have been sent by Matt Nixson, a former features editor with the News Of The World.

In that email Nixson is alleged to have told a reporter, Matthew Acton, to pay one of the officials who had access to a child murderer in prison and then to “chuck her some more money later”.

The article goes on to allege that Mr Nixson asked that the payment be arranged “very carefully,” since the company had a “forensic new accountant who doesn’t brook any funny business”.

All of which implies that the News Of The World’s previous accountant took a different attitude to ‘funny business’.

The New Accountant Does Not Brook Any Funny Business is a post from: No More Pencils